Re: cacti broken in 6.3?
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 11:33:37PM +0100, Helmut Schneider wrote: Edwin Groothuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 10:22:31PM +0100, Helmut Schneider wrote: I started a long thread at http://forums.cacti.net/about25481.html but it turns out that FreeBSD 6.3 might be the problem. FreeBSD 6.2 and 7.0-RC1 (see below) are not affected. Here is what I did: Silly question from me maybe: did you recompile the net-snmp and phpX-snmp libraries? Yes, I forced a portupgrade of net-snmp-5.3.2_1 and php5-snmp-5.2.5_1 and I even completly removed cacti, .*PHP.* and .*snmp.* and did a 'portinstall -Rf cacti'. I also tried with cacti 0.8.7 and 0.8.6j. I also dropped the cacti database and recreated it. Does your question imply that you are running cacti on 6.3 without problems? No, but I have planned an upgrade of a lot of machines this weekend, including one which runs Cacti :-) The only reason I wondered if net-snmp was recompiled is because it takes some low-level things like CPU usage and memory, so I thought maybe it is related. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Different variants of the same package on ftp.FreeBSD.org
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:17:00AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, ~ $ host ftp.freebsd.org ftp.freebsd.org has address 204.152.184.73 ftp.freebsd.org has address 62.243.72.50 ftp.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:6c8:6:4::7 ftp.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:0:2::e ~ $ echo -e dir mathopd*\nquit | ftp ftp://204.152.184.73/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/All/ Connected to 204.152.184.73. 220 Welcome to freebsd.isc.org. ... -rw-r--r--1 110 100256584 Jan 24 06:20 mathopd-1.5p6.tbz ~ $ echo -e dir mathopd*\nquit | ftp ftp://62.243.72.50/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/All/ Connected to 62.243.72.50. 220 ftp.FreeBSD.org NcFTPd Server (licensed copy) ready. ... -rw-r--r-- 1 ftpuser ftpusers 56520 Nov 4 14:48 mathopd-1.5p6.tbz Different sizes, different dates. The November variant is broken (installed package crashes at first connection), the January variant works. I.e. half of users get the broken variant from ftp.FreeBSD.org. Local mirrors contain the broken variant. http://www.freshports.org/www/mathopd lists last commit on August 13, 2007. How, why different variants? I'm not able to find out why the files are there on the 62.243 one, but they are from 6.2 while the one from January 24 is the FreeBSD 6.3 one. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis |Personal website: http://www.mavetju.org [EMAIL PROTECTED]| Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Different variants of the same package on ftp.FreeBSD.org
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 07:09:57PM +1100, Edwin Groothuis wrote: ~ $ host ftp.freebsd.org ftp.freebsd.org has address 204.152.184.73 ftp.freebsd.org has address 62.243.72.50 ftp.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:6c8:6:4::7 ftp.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:0:2::e ~ $ echo -e dir mathopd*\nquit | ftp ftp://204.152.184.73/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/All/ Connected to 204.152.184.73. 220 Welcome to freebsd.isc.org. ... -rw-r--r--1 110 100256584 Jan 24 06:20 mathopd-1.5p6.tbz ~ $ echo -e dir mathopd*\nquit | ftp ftp://62.243.72.50/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/All/ Connected to 62.243.72.50. 220 ftp.FreeBSD.org NcFTPd Server (licensed copy) ready. ... -rw-r--r-- 1 ftpuser ftpusers 56520 Nov 4 14:48 mathopd-1.5p6.tbz Different sizes, different dates. The November variant is broken (installed package crashes at first connection), the January variant works. I.e. half of users get the broken variant from ftp.FreeBSD.org. Local mirrors contain the broken variant. http://www.freshports.org/www/mathopd lists last commit on August 13, 2007. How, why different variants? I'm not able to find out why the files are there on the 62.243 one, but they are from 6.2 while the one from January 24 is the FreeBSD 6.3 one. The November variant crashes under 6.2-RELEASE-p1. If I build mathopd from ports under the same 6.2-RELEASE-p1 then it works. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Different variants of the same package on ftp.FreeBSD.org
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:19:10 +0200, Lena wrote On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 07:09:57PM +1100, Edwin Groothuis wrote: ~ $ host ftp.freebsd.org ftp.freebsd.org has address 204.152.184.73 ftp.freebsd.org has address 62.243.72.50 ftp.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:6c8:6:4::7 ftp.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:0:2::e ~ $ echo -e dir mathopd*\nquit | ftp ftp://204.152.184.73/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/All/ Connected to 204.152.184.73. 220 Welcome to freebsd.isc.org. ... -rw-r--r--1 110 100256584 Jan 24 06:20 mathopd-1.5p6.tbz ~ $ echo -e dir mathopd*\nquit | ftp ftp://62.243.72.50/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/All/ Connected to 62.243.72.50. 220 ftp.FreeBSD.org NcFTPd Server (licensed copy) ready. ... -rw-r--r-- 1 ftpuser ftpusers 56520 Nov 4 14:48 mathopd-1.5p6.tbz Different sizes, different dates. The November variant is broken (installed package crashes at first connection), the January variant works. I.e. half of users get the broken variant from ftp.FreeBSD.org. Local mirrors contain the broken variant. http://www.freshports.org/www/mathopd lists last commit on August 13, 2007. How, why different variants? I'm not able to find out why the files are there on the 62.243 one, but they are from 6.2 while the one from January 24 is the FreeBSD 6.3 one. The November variant crashes under 6.2-RELEASE-p1. If I build mathopd from ports under the same 6.2-RELEASE-p1 then it works. ftp-master have the January 24. Guess the mirrors are behind in mirroring the stuff. :) -- Pav Lucistnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Different variants of the same package on ftp.FreeBSD.org
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:37:38AM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote: ~ $ host ftp.freebsd.org ftp.freebsd.org has address 204.152.184.73 ftp.freebsd.org has address 62.243.72.50 ftp.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:6c8:6:4::7 ftp.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:0:2::e ~ $ echo -e dir mathopd*\nquit | ftp ftp://204.152.184.73/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/All/ Connected to 204.152.184.73. 220 Welcome to freebsd.isc.org. ... -rw-r--r--1 110 100256584 Jan 24 06:20 mathopd-1.5p6.tbz ~ $ echo -e dir mathopd*\nquit | ftp ftp://62.243.72.50/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/All/ Connected to 62.243.72.50. 220 ftp.FreeBSD.org NcFTPd Server (licensed copy) ready. ... -rw-r--r-- 1 ftpuser ftpusers 56520 Nov 4 14:48 mathopd-1.5p6.tbz Different sizes, different dates. The November variant is broken (installed package crashes at first connection), the January variant works. I.e. half of users get the broken variant from ftp.FreeBSD.org. Local mirrors contain the broken variant. http://www.freshports.org/www/mathopd lists last commit on August 13, 2007. How, why different variants? I'm not able to find out why the files are there on the 62.243 one, but they are from 6.2 while the one from January 24 is the FreeBSD 6.3 one. The November variant crashes under 6.2-RELEASE-p1. If I build mathopd from ports under the same 6.2-RELEASE-p1 then it works. ftp-master have the January 24. Guess the mirrors are behind in mirroring the stuff. :) I already found out how to get working variant. I want to attract attention to the fact that for several months ftp.freebsd.org had the broken variant which crashes under 6.2 though building from port under my 6.2 gives working package. The mathopd port hasn't depencencies at all, one binary. How the broken variant was compiled? If someone wants to investigate, I uploaded the broken November 4 package at http://lena.kiev.ua/broken-mathopd-1.5p6.tbz ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ports-mgmt/portupgrade-devel
Mark Nowiasz wrote: Hi, when using portupgrade-devel, I'm getting the following errors: --- Session ended at: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:58:52 +0100 (consumed 00:02:01) /usr/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/pkgversion.rb:41:in `initialize': : Not in due form: 'version[_revision][,epoch]'. (ArgumentError) What port exactly did you upgraded please? -- Dixi. Sem. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Question about non-standard CPAN port
I found a really useful (to me) module at CPAN - Snort::Rule - which can
dynamically create snort rules from a list of bad ips/hostnames. It's not in
ports, so I thought I'd create a port for it. But there's a problem. The CPAN
macro in ports looks in /modules/by-module, but this module cannot be found
there. It can only be found by going to /authors/by-author/S/SA/blah/foo.
My question is, should I submit this port even though it uses a non-standard
master site from CPAN?
Here's the Makefile I created:
# ports collection makefile for:perl extension for dynamically building
snort rules
# Date created: 30 January 2008
# Whom: Paul Schmehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
#
# $FreeBSD$
#
PORTNAME= Snort-Rule
PORTVERSION=1.06
CATEGORIES= security perl5
MASTER_SITES= http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-authors/id/S/SA/SAXJAZMAN/Snort/
MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR= ${PORTNAME}-${PORTVERSION}
PKGNAMEPREFIX= p5-
MAINTAINER= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
COMMENT=Perl5 extension for dynamically building snort rules
PERL_CONFIGURE= yes
PLIST_FILES=%%SITE_PERL%%/Snort/Rule.pm \
%%SITE_PERL%%/mach/auto/Snort/Rule/.packlist
PLIST_DIRS= %%SITE_PERL%%/mach/auto/Snort/Rule \
%%SITE_PERL%%/mach/auto/Snort \
%%SITE_PERL%%/Snort
MAN3= Snort::Rule.3
.include bsd.port.mk
The port installs and uninstalls as expected, but I wonder if I should wait
until the module gets included in the standard path. Does anyone know why it
wouldn't be there now? Does it have to be vetted to be included?
--
Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Senior Information Security Analyst
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ssldump fails to compile
Jukka A. Ukkonen wrote: The subject should already tell the most important news. Find below the error messages shown by the compiler... cc -O2 -pipe -O2 -pipe -DHAVE_LIBM=1 -DHAVE_SYS_TIME_H=1 -DSTDC_HEADERS=1 -DTIME_WITH_SYS_TIME=1 -DSIZEOF_UNSIGNED_SHORT=2 -DSIZEOF_UNSIGNED_INT=4 -DSIZEOF_UNSIGNED_LONG=4 -DSIZEOF_UNSIGNED_LONG_LONG=8 -DRETSIGTYPE=void -DHAVE_VPRINTF=1 -DHAVE_STRDUP=1 -c -o pcap-snoop.o ./base/pcap-snoop.c -DOPENSSL -I./base/ -I./null/ -I./ssl/ -Icommon/include/ -I./null/ -I./ssl/ -I/usr/local/include In file included from ./base/pcap-snoop.c:52: /usr/include/net/bpf.h:63: error: redefinition of `struct bpf_program' /usr/include/net/bpf.h:87: error: redefinition of `struct bpf_version' /usr/include/net/bpf.h:596: error: redefinition of `struct bpf_insn' ./base/pcap-snoop.c: In function `main': ./base/pcap-snoop.c:207: warning: passing arg 2 of `signal' from incompatible pointer type ./base/pcap-snoop.c:329: warning: passing arg 3 of `pcap_loop' from incompatible pointer type *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/net/ssldump/work/ssldump-0.9b3. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/net/ssldump. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/ports/net/ssldump. I hope this helps. Yet it builds OK on my system FreeBSD fred.dyn.portseattle.org 6.3-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.3-PRERELEASE #5: Wed Jan 2 08:18:20 PST 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/VMWARE2 i386 Here is the similar section of the compile... cc -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -DHAVE_LIBM=1 -DHAVE_SYS_TIME_H=1 -DSTDC_HEADERS=1 -DTIME_WITH_SYS_TIME=1 -DSIZEOF_UNSIGNED_SHORT=2 -DSIZEOF_UNSIGNED_INT=4 -DSIZEOF_UNSIGNED_LONG=4 -DSIZEOF_UNSIGNED_LONG_LONG=8 -DRETSIGTYPE=void -DHAVE_VPRINTF=1 -DHAVE_STRDUP=1 -c -o pcap-snoop.o ./base/pcap-snoop.c -DOPENSSL-I./base/ -I./null/ -I./ssl/ -Icommon/include/ -I./null/ -I./ssl/ -I/usr/include ./base/pcap-snoop.c: In function `main': ./base/pcap-snoop.c:207: warning: passing arg 2 of `signal' from incompatible pointer type ./base/pcap-snoop.c:329: warning: passing arg 3 of `pcap_loop' from incompatible pointer type cc -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -DHAVE_LIBM=1 -DHAVE_SYS_TIME_H=1 -DSTDC_HEADERS=1 -DTIME_WITH_SYS_TIME=1 -DSIZEOF_UNSIGNED_SHORT=2 -DSIZEOF_UNSIGNED_INT=4 -DSIZEOF_UNSIGNED_LONG=4 -DSIZEOF_UNSIGNED_LONG_LONG=8 -DRETSIGTYPE=void -DHAVE_VPRINTF=1 -DHAVE_STRDUP=1 -c -o proto_mod.o ./base/proto_mod.c -DOPENSSL-I./base/ -I./null/ -I./ssl/ -Icommon/include/ -I./null/ -I./ssl/ -I/usr/include # gcc -v Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 What version of FreeBSD and gcc do you have? -- Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints... Mark D. Foster, CISSP [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mark.foster.cc/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fix for FreeBSD-SA-08:01.pty appears to break net/omnitty?
On Jan 29, 2008 11:21 AM, David Wolfskill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a sysadmin, it's not unusual for me to have a desire to do similar things on sets of systems; thus, when a colleague pointed out the net/omnitty port to me, it didn't take long for me to find it useful. But I noticed on 21 January that omnitty(1) wasn't working: upon accepting the name of a host to which to connect, it appeared to hang. [...] An interesting thing is that if I run omnitty inside screen, it appeared to 'hang'. Then it works if I detach then attach. Any one who has more knowledge in pty code can help us? thanks, Rong-En Fan ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[: -le: argument expected
Hello all,
System:
FreeBSD 7.0-PRERELEASE i386 Wed Jan 16 18:39:53 PST 2008
Context:
After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of Apache13-ssl
and friends built and installed from source (see thread:
/usr/bin/objformat, for
more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using Apache
2.0. I was
reluctant, as doing so would require migrating ~50 carefully crafted
conf files
which have evolved over many yrs. to be now seemingly impervious to abuse, or
attack. I hadn't intended this server to become a guinea pig, but my ill fated
attempts to install a stable copy of www/apache13-ssl from source necessitated
increasing the resources on the other servers. So as to experiment on
this one.
To the point!
Building Apache 2.0 on this box requied cvsupping src/ports (2008-01-30).
As the version of Apache 2.0 was 2.0.61 (has 2 security related issues).
Current version:
2.0.63. Building/installing this version went w/o trouble. Ran as expected.
I only made 1 mod from the default config/build: WITH_MPM?= threadpool.
The original was: WITH_MPM?= prefork. My diong so also required: KQUEUE.
Other than that, all was as-was.
Error(s):
After determining that everything was acceptablr/as intended with Apache.
I moved on to building/installing php5 as cgi,cli, and module. The first
thing emitted when typing make is:
[: -le: argument expected
[: -le: argument expected
This gets emitted once more early in the configure process. Followed by:
configure.in:152: warning: AC_PROG_LEX invoked multiple times
../../lib/autoconf/programs.m4:779: AC_DECL_YYTEXT is expanded from...
aclocal.m4:2080: PHP_PROG_LEX is expanded from...
configure.in:152: the top level
The build finally /dies/ with the following otput (with context):
...
Thank you for using PHP.
config.status: creating php5.spec
config.status: creating main/build-defs.h
config.status: creating scripts/phpize
config.status: creating scripts/man1/phpize.1
config.status: creating scripts/php-config
config.status: creating scripts/man1/php-config.1
config.status: creating sapi/cli/php.1
config.status: creating main/php_config.h
config.status: executing default commands
=== Building for php5-5.2.5_1
Makefile, line 592: warning: duplicate script for target
main/internal_functions.lo ignored
...
-I/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/Zend-O2 -fno-strict-aliasing
-pipe -prefer-non-pic -c
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c -o
sapi/apache/sapi_apache.lo
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c: In
function 'apache_php_module_main':
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c:44:
error: 'NOT_FOUND' undeclared (first use in this function)
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c:44:
error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c:44:
error: for each function it appears in.)
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5.
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/lang/php5.
*** Error code 1
From sapi_apache.c:
if (display_source_mode) {
zend_syntax_highlighter_ini syntax_highlighter_ini;
php_get_highlight_struct(syntax_highlighter_ini);
if (highlight_file(SG(request_info).path_translated,
syntax_highlighter_ini TSRMLS_CC) != SUCCESS) {
*** OFFENDING LINE (44) retval = NOT_FOUND;
}
} else {
Any chance somebody knows what is required to resolve this - pretty please?
Thank you for all your time and consideration.
--Chris H
--
panic: kernel trap (ignored)
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about non-standard CPAN port
On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
My question is, should I submit this port even though it uses a non-
standard master site from CPAN?
Do it like this:
MASTER_SITES= ${MASTER_SITE_PERL_CPAN}
MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR= ../by-authors/id/S/SA/SAXJAZMAN/Snort
See for example how this works in textproc/p5-KinoSearch
Not all modules make it into the official list, so don't wait for
that to happen. If the author wants it listed in the list, he can
request it to be done by sending mail to the cpan masters.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about non-standard CPAN port
--On Thursday, January 31, 2008 12:59:53 -0500 Vivek Khera [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jan 31, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Paul Schmehl wrote:
My question is, should I submit this port even though it uses a non-
standard master site from CPAN?
Do it like this:
MASTER_SITES= ${MASTER_SITE_PERL_CPAN}
MASTER_SITE_SUBDIR= ../by-authors/id/S/SA/SAXJAZMAN/Snort
Thanks, Vivek.
One other question. Should the PORTNAME be lower case even though the DISTNAME
is not? Or does it matter?
--
Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Senior Information Security Analyst
The University of Texas at Dallas
http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [: -le: argument expected
After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of Apache13-ssl and friends built and installed from source (see thread: /usr/bin/objformat, for more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using Apache 2.0. Out of interest, why did you choose 2.0 and not 2.2 ? When I migrated away from 1.3 I originally tried 2.0 and had quite a bad time of it as I recall. So I left it a while and ended up going directly to 2.2, which has behaved beautifully. I can't solve your problem, but I can say that personal experience was 2.2 being easier to move to. -pete. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Different variants of the same package on ftp.FreeBSD.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 10:37:38AM +0100, Pav Lucistnik wrote: ~ $ host ftp.freebsd.org ftp.freebsd.org has address 204.152.184.73 ftp.freebsd.org has address 62.243.72.50 ftp.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:6c8:6:4::7 ftp.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:0:2::e ~ $ echo -e dir mathopd*\nquit | ftp ftp://204.152.184.73/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/All/ Connected to 204.152.184.73. 220 Welcome to freebsd.isc.org. ... -rw-r--r--1 110 100256584 Jan 24 06:20 mathopd-1.5p6.tbz ~ $ echo -e dir mathopd*\nquit | ftp ftp://62.243.72.50/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/All/ Connected to 62.243.72.50. 220 ftp.FreeBSD.org NcFTPd Server (licensed copy) ready. ... -rw-r--r-- 1 ftpuser ftpusers 56520 Nov 4 14:48 mathopd-1.5p6.tbz Different sizes, different dates. The November variant is broken (installed package crashes at first connection), the January variant works. I.e. half of users get the broken variant from ftp.FreeBSD.org. Local mirrors contain the broken variant. http://www.freshports.org/www/mathopd lists last commit on August 13, 2007. How, why different variants? I'm not able to find out why the files are there on the 62.243 one, but they are from 6.2 while the one from January 24 is the FreeBSD 6.3 one. The November variant crashes under 6.2-RELEASE-p1. If I build mathopd from ports under the same 6.2-RELEASE-p1 then it works. ftp-master have the January 24. Guess the mirrors are behind in mirroring the stuff. :) I already found out how to get working variant. I want to attract attention to the fact that for several months ftp.freebsd.org had the broken variant which crashes under 6.2 though building from port under my 6.2 gives working package. The mathopd port hasn't depencencies at all, one binary. How the broken variant was compiled? From the ports tree as it was around November 4 2007. Presumably the port was broken back then, and then it was fixed. Kris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Different variants of the same package on ftp.FreeBSD.org
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 08:32:06PM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote: ~ $ host ftp.freebsd.org ftp.freebsd.org has address 204.152.184.73 ftp.freebsd.org has address 62.243.72.50 ftp.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:6c8:6:4::7 ftp.freebsd.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:0:2::e ~ $ echo -e dir mathopd*\nquit | ftp ftp://204.152.184.73/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/All/ Connected to 204.152.184.73. 220 Welcome to freebsd.isc.org. -rw-r--r--1 110 100256584 Jan 24 06:20 mathopd-1.5p6.tbz ~ $ echo -e dir mathopd*\nquit | ftp ftp://62.243.72.50/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-6-stable/All/ Connected to 62.243.72.50. 220 ftp.FreeBSD.org NcFTPd Server (licensed copy) ready. -rw-r--r-- 1 ftpuser ftpusers 56520 Nov 4 14:48 mathopd-1.5p6.tbz Different sizes, different dates. The November variant is broken (installed package crashes at first connection), the January variant works. I.e. half of users get the broken variant from ftp.FreeBSD.org. Local mirrors contain the broken variant. http://www.freshports.org/www/mathopd lists last commit on August 13, 2007. How, why different variants? I'm not able to find out why the files are there on the 62.243 one, but they are from 6.2 while the one from January 24 is the FreeBSD 6.3 one. The November variant crashes under 6.2-RELEASE-p1. If I build mathopd from ports under the same 6.2-RELEASE-p1 then it works. ftp-master have the January 24. Guess the mirrors are behind in mirroring the stuff. :) I already found out how to get working variant. I want to attract attention to the fact that for several months ftp.freebsd.org had the broken variant which crashes under 6.2-R though building from port under my 6.2-R gives working package. The mathopd port hasn't depencencies at all, one binary. How the broken variant was compiled? From the ports tree as it was around November 4 2007. Presumably the port was broken back then, and then it was fixed. Besides abovementioned freshports.org, http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/www/mathopd/ (and subdirs) also lists the last change in the port on August 13, 2007. The distinfo file (including checksums) was last changed on August 5, 2007. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [: -le: argument expected
Quoting Pete French [EMAIL PROTECTED]: After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of Apache13-ssl and friends built and installed from source (see thread: /usr/bin/objformat, for more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using Apache 2.0. Out of interest, why did you choose 2.0 and not 2.2 ? When I migrated away from 1.3 I originally tried 2.0 and had quite a bad time of it as I recall. So I left it a while and ended up going directly to 2.2, which has behaved beautifully. I can't solve your problem, but I can say that personal experience was 2.2 being easier to move to. Hello, and thank you for your reply. That's a fair (and expected) question. I have to tell you, my experiences with 13-ssl have been /very/ good. That is until I upgraded to 7-PRERELEASE. I spent quite some time (1 wk.) attempting to make it continue to work. In the final analysis, I /did/ discover that even after resolving the original problem exporting the symbols from the mod_*'s correctly, there is still an apparent signalling/timing issue. I blame that on the fact that I'm using ULE scheduling on 7, and am using BSD scheduling on all our 6.x servers. Even baring that, after starting a working version of apache13-ssl on a 7-PRE i386 box and closely monitoring it reveals that it leaks memory like sieve. So, rather than spending even more time (which I don't have) attempting to plug the hole(s), and accounting for/correcting the timing issue. I opted to take Jeremy Chadwick's gentle nudge to move to a newer version of Apache - I went kicking and screaming the whole way. :) But I spent an entire day reading the Apache 2.0, and 2.2 documentation (I'm also already subscribed to the Apache dev list). My conclusion was that the ultimate migration to 2, would be a lot smoother, and easier if moving to 2.0 - the layout of both the server, and conf files are /very/ similar (to 1.3). Further; the point changes occur at a much lower rate than that of 2.2 - overhead that my current workload cannot tolerate. In 2.0's defence; I found absolutely no issues what-so-ever with the building, installing, or running of it. It also required /far/ less resources than that of 1.3. Yet offered more threads/servers. So, it is difficult for me to find an argument to move from 2.0. The current trouble I'm encountering is clearly a PHP5 issue. As it isn't even touching the Apache 2 install during the build process. I hope I've adequately answered your question, and hope I wasn't /too/ verbose. :) Thanks again. --Chris H. -pete. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- panic: kernel trap (ignored) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Upgrading xorg 6.9 to 7.3 -- what happened to xorg-upgrade?
The info in /usr/ports/UPGRADING describing the steps to upgrade xorg says to run xorg-upgrade. Unfortunately, I can't find *anything* with this name anywhere on my system. Here's my uname output: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:pf /usr/ports uname -a FreeBSD sarlacc.austin.ibm.com 6.3-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.3-PRERELEASE #20: Wed Jan 2 11:29:25 CST 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SARLACC amd64 I have (just today) updated my ports tree (via cvsup). Anyone have any idea where I might find the xorg-upgrade file? Perhaps it isn't required any longer. If that's the case, that would be good to know as well. Thanks, Bob -- Bob Willcox A lack of planning on your part does [EMAIL PROTECTED] not constitute an emergency on my part. Austin, TX ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about non-standard CPAN port
On Jan 31, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote: One other question. Should the PORTNAME be lower case even though the DISTNAME is not? Or does it matter? Portname for perl ports is generally upper/lower case mix as the name of the perl module itself. I don't think it needs to be smashed to lower case. Just do a pkg_info and see all the p5-* ports... I like to name them to match what DISTNAME needs to fetch the file, so I don't have to explicitly set DISTNAME. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question about non-standard CPAN port
--On Thursday, January 31, 2008 16:51:21 -0500 Vivek Khera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jan 31, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote: One other question. Should the PORTNAME be lower case even though the DISTNAME is not? Or does it matter? Portname for perl ports is generally upper/lower case mix as the name of the perl module itself. I don't think it needs to be smashed to lower case. Just do a pkg_info and see all the p5-* ports... I like to name them to match what DISTNAME needs to fetch the file, so I don't have to explicitly set DISTNAME. Thank you again, Vivek. I'll finish this up and get it submitted. -- Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Senior Information Security Analyst The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading xorg 6.9 to 7.3 -- what happened to xorg-upgrade?
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 03:56:23PM -0500, Wesley Shields wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 02:34:26PM -0600, Bob Willcox wrote: The info in /usr/ports/UPGRADING describing the steps to upgrade xorg says to run xorg-upgrade. Unfortunately, I can't find *anything* with this name anywhere on my system. Here's my uname output: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:pf /usr/ports uname -a FreeBSD sarlacc.austin.ibm.com 6.3-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.3-PRERELEASE #20: Wed Jan 2 11:29:25 CST 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/SARLACC amd64 I have (just today) updated my ports tree (via cvsup). Anyone have any idea where I might find the xorg-upgrade file? Perhaps it isn't required any longer. If that's the case, that would be good to know as well. What that entry is talking about is using script(1) in order to get an accurate account of exactly what you did in case something goes wrong. No, I'm not interested in the script(1) part. I am familiar with script but wasn't interested in using it here. What I want is the xorg-upgrade program that is used to move a bunch of x11 files to new places for the 7.x version. Bob More information is available in the script man page. -- WXS -- Bob Willcox A lack of planning on your part does [EMAIL PROTECTED] not constitute an emergency on my part. Austin, TX ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [: -le: argument expected (php5 unbuildable)
Quoting Chris H. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello all,
System:
FreeBSD 7.0-PRERELEASE i386 Wed Jan 16 18:39:53 PST 2008
Context:
After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of Apache13-ssl
and friends built and installed from source (see thread:
/usr/bin/objformat, for
more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using Apache
2.0. I was
reluctant, as doing so would require migrating ~50 carefully crafted
conf files
which have evolved over many yrs. to be now seemingly impervious to abuse, or
attack. I hadn't intended this server to become a guinea pig, but my
ill fated
attempts to install a stable copy of www/apache13-ssl from source
necessitated
increasing the resources on the other servers. So as to experiment on
this one.
To the point!
Building Apache 2.0 on this box requied cvsupping src/ports (2008-01-30).
As the version of Apache 2.0 was 2.0.61 (has 2 security related issues).
Current version:
2.0.63. Building/installing this version went w/o trouble. Ran as expected.
I only made 1 mod from the default config/build: WITH_MPM?= threadpool.
The original was: WITH_MPM?= prefork. My diong so also required: KQUEUE.
Other than that, all was as-was.
Error(s):
After determining that everything was acceptablr/as intended with Apache.
I moved on to building/installing php5 as cgi,cli, and module. The first
thing emitted when typing make is:
[: -le: argument expected
[: -le: argument expected
This gets emitted once more early in the configure process. Followed by:
configure.in:152: warning: AC_PROG_LEX invoked multiple times
../../lib/autoconf/programs.m4:779: AC_DECL_YYTEXT is expanded from...
aclocal.m4:2080: PHP_PROG_LEX is expanded from...
configure.in:152: the top level
The build finally /dies/ with the following otput (with context):
...
Thank you for using PHP.
config.status: creating php5.spec
config.status: creating main/build-defs.h
config.status: creating scripts/phpize
config.status: creating scripts/man1/phpize.1
config.status: creating scripts/php-config
config.status: creating scripts/man1/php-config.1
config.status: creating sapi/cli/php.1
config.status: creating main/php_config.h
config.status: executing default commands
=== Building for php5-5.2.5_1
Makefile, line 592: warning: duplicate script for target
main/internal_functions.lo ignored
...
-I/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/Zend-O2
-fno-strict-aliasing -pipe -prefer-non-pic -c
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c -o
sapi/apache/sapi_apache.lo
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c: In
function 'apache_php_module_main':
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c:44:
error: 'NOT_FOUND' undeclared (first use in this function)
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c:44:
error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
/usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5/sapi/apache/sapi_apache.c:44:
error: for each function it appears in.)
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/lang/php5/work/php-5.2.5.
*** Error code 1
Stop in /usr/ports/lang/php5.
*** Error code 1
From sapi_apache.c:
if (display_source_mode) {
zend_syntax_highlighter_ini syntax_highlighter_ini;
php_get_highlight_struct(syntax_highlighter_ini);
if (highlight_file(SG(request_info).path_translated,
syntax_highlighter_ini TSRMLS_CC) != SUCCESS) {
*** OFFENDING LINE (44) retval = NOT_FOUND;
}
} else {
Any chance somebody knows what is required to resolve this - pretty please?
Thank you for all your time and consideration.
--Chris H
Just making the title more meaningful.
The original wasn't very representitive of the problem. Sorry.
--Chris
--
panic: kernel trap (ignored)
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-apache
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
panic: kernel trap (ignored)
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [: -le: argument expected
also already subscribed to the Apache dev list). My conclusion was that the ultimate migration to 2, would be a lot smoother, and easier if moving to 2.0 - the layout of both the server, and conf files are /very/ similar (to 1.3). O.K., that makes a lot of sense - I can't remember how I did this, but I think I ended abandonning migrating the config files and simply re-wrote them to have the same functionality when I got a few spare dayes ;) me to find an argument to move from 2.0. The current trouble I'm encountering is clearly a PHP5 issue. As it isn't even touching the Apache 2 install during the build process. I hope I've adequately answered your question, and hope I wasn't /too/ verbose. :) NO, answered perfectly - am tyring to remmebr whether the reaosn I didnt like 2.0 was to do with php too though. It seems to cause some kind of woes every time I upgrade. You said you had to sup the ports tree BTW - does that mean you rebuilt every other port on the system ? -pete. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [: -le: argument expected
Hello Peter, and thank you for your thoughtful reply. Quoting Pete French [EMAIL PROTECTED]: also already subscribed to the Apache dev list). My conclusion was that the ultimate migration to 2, would be a lot smoother, and easier if moving to 2.0 - the layout of both the server, and conf files are /very/ similar (to 1.3). O.K., that makes a lot of sense - I can't remember how I did this, but I think I ended abandonning migrating the config files and simply re-wrote them to have the same functionality when I got a few spare dayes ;) Well, to be Frank with you ( even though my name is Chris ;) ), having to migrate ~50 conf files/layouts on top of mastering the /new/ Apache way of doing things, on top of aquainting myself with the way the modules /now/ do things, just isn't going to fit in my schedule. Oh sure I hear you (or others) say; you're going to have to do all of that anyway. So why not just start now, and get it over with. While to a degree that may be so. But as I have it now, my servers are frequently hammered at ~50-75 attacks/second, all without fail. They are (thus far) also impervious to attempts to acquisition/manipulation of server data (most notably PHP). This has been no small feat, and has all been from the acumulation, and examination of the data that was waged against our servers over the years. Not to mention, becoming intimately familiar with all the modules we use (weaknesses/strengths etc...). So, in an effort to continue to thwart such attacks. I'm going to /attempt/ to use 2.0.x. Which really only requires me to re-aquaint myself with the modules. /Then/ should the need/time/desire to move to 2.2.x occur. It won't be such an unreasonable task. :) me to find an argument to move from 2.0. The current trouble I'm encountering is clearly a PHP5 issue. As it isn't even touching the Apache 2 install during the build process. I hope I've adequately answered your question, and hope I wasn't /too/ verbose. :) NO, answered perfectly - am tyring to remmebr whether the reaosn I didnt like 2.0 was to do with php too though. It seems to cause some kind of woes every time I upgrade. I don't think it's (at this point in my install) reasonable to assume Apache 2.0 has anything to do with it. As the PHP5 build doesn't even care (or ask about) which Apache version I'm using, except to differentiate between it being 1.3 || 2.x. You said you had to sup the ports tree BTW - does that mean you rebuilt every other port on the system ? No. Not yet. I examined the changes that were applied, and the only areas that affect what I struggling with now, are being built /after/ the cvsup (weren't built before). Thanks again for taking the time to respond. --Chris H -pete. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- panic: kernel trap (ignored) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading xorg 6.9 to 7.3 -- what happened to xorg-upgrade?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Willcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I want is the xorg-upgrade program that is used to move a bunch of x11 files to new places for the 7.x version. /usr/ports/Tools/scripts/mergebase.sh ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading xorg 6.9 to 7.3 -- what happened to xorg-upgrade?
Bob Willcox wrote: No, I'm not interested in the script(1) part. I am familiar with script but wasn't interested in using it here. What I want is the xorg-upgrade program that is used to move a bunch of x11 files to new places for the 7.x version. xorg-upgrade is the file that script(1) spews all the output into so, if the upgrade fails, you've got all the info to work out why (which is why UPDATING suggests using script(1)). IIRC when I did the 6.9 - 7.x upgrade xorg-upgrade ended up being something like 30MB!! From script(1): script [-akq] [-t time] [file [command ...]] [...] If the argument file is given, script saves all dialogue in file. HTH Regards, Mark ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [: -le: argument expected
Well, to be Frank with you ( even though my name is Chris ;) ), having to migrate ~50 conf files/layouts on top of mastering the /new/ Apache way of doing things, on top of aquainting myself with the way the modules /now/ do things, just isn't going to fit in my schedule. Oh sure I hear you (or others) say; you're going to have to do all of that anyway. Actually I understand that perfcetly - indeed I spent today finally mihgrating something originally installed on FreeBSD 3 many years ago (possibly 1999) and getting it working with ports as I had been avoiding re-doing it for all these years. Several hour and a lot of pain. If I wasn't off work sick it wouldn't have got done at all. I don't think it's (at this point in my install) reasonable to assume Apache 2.0 has anything to do with it. As the PHP5 build doesn't even care (or ask about) which Apache version I'm using, except to differentiate between it being 1.3 || 2.x. O.K., so this is a simple case of cd /usr/ports/lang/php5 make fetch-recursive make config-recursive make clean make yup ? now, I did that with a csup of php5 a few days ago and it was O.K. for me. I am reconning that this has something to do with some other ports that php5 is dependent on which havent been upgraded to the version in the tree. How about try configuring it *not* to build the apache dependent bits and see if it compiles then? The php5 port only depends on Apache if you tell it to build the Apache module. Or try installing it with pkg_add -r ? -pete. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [: -le: argument expected
Hello, and thank you for your reply. Quoting Lawrence Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Chris, Firstly, a disclaimer: I'm not an expert so I might be behind the times on what I'm about to tell you... Note taken. :) Chris H. wrote: Hello all, System: FreeBSD 7.0-PRERELEASE i386 Wed Jan 16 18:39:53 PST 2008 Context: After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of Apache13-ssl and friends built and installed from source (see thread: /usr/bin/objformat, for more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using Apache 2.0. I was reluctant, as doing so would require migrating ~50 carefully crafted conf files which have evolved over many yrs. to be now seemingly impervious to abuse, or attack. I hadn't intended this server to become a guinea pig, but my ill fated attempts to install a stable copy of www/apache13-ssl from source necessitated increasing the resources on the other servers. So as to experiment on this one. To the point! Building Apache 2.0 on this box requied cvsupping src/ports (2008-01-30). As the version of Apache 2.0 was 2.0.61 (has 2 security related issues). Current version: 2.0.63. Building/installing this version went w/o trouble. Ran as expected. I only made 1 mod from the default config/build: WITH_MPM?= threadpool. The original was: WITH_MPM?= prefork. My diong so also required: KQUEUE. Other than that, all was as-was. [snip] Regardless of the errors you reported, I believe changing the MPM is a problem. Last time I tried Apache with the threaded worker MPM it worked flawlessly. However PHP has issues because it isn't thread safe. The only safe way to run the 2 together was to set the Apache MPM back to the default (prefork). While I appreciate your insight regarding php5 not being thread safe. I would argue that I am not seeing php5 using anthing regarding my Apache 2.0 build, except to ask whether it is 1.3 || 2. So, while you may be /absolutely/ correct about php5 not running well/at all with a threaded Apache. I'm still stumped as to why php5 refuses to build, and emits what appears to be errors in the php5 configure/make files. Point being; if I can get php5 to build/install. I might be able to make it play nice with a threaded Apache; and that would make /everyone/ happy. :) Taking my disclaimer into account, I possibly just didn't figure out how to make the 2 play nice, so I'd welcome info/pointers from others who have managed to get threaded apache and PHP working together. Assuming no one pipes up and explains how to work around the PHP threading issues, I'd recommend rebuilding apache with the default MPM (shouldn't require any make variables defined). Verify it works ok once installed and then try get PHP working again. I may try that. But I'm at a loss as to what that has to do with getting php5 to build. As (mentioned earlier) I am unable to find where php5 does anything more that to ask if I'm using Apache 1.3 || 2. I would also echo the recommendation of others to jump straight to Apache 2.2(.8) if you're going to make a disruptive switch now anyways. I have a personal step-by-step build guide for getting Apache 2.2 and PHP5 working together if you're interested. Not going to happen - in the near future anyway. It's not unlike asking an Athiest to become a Jew. While it may be possible for one to make the change. It's a quantum leap. I've recently elaborated on this already. So I'll not repeat myself here. :) As to your reported errors, I can't really shed any light on them, sorry. Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply, and your generous offer Lawerence. :) --Chris Cheers, Lawrence -- panic: kernel trap (ignored) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [: -le: argument expected
Hi Chris, Firstly, a disclaimer: I'm not an expert so I might be behind the times on what I'm about to tell you... Chris H. wrote: Hello all, System: FreeBSD 7.0-PRERELEASE i386 Wed Jan 16 18:39:53 PST 2008 Context: After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of Apache13-ssl and friends built and installed from source (see thread: /usr/bin/objformat, for more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using Apache 2.0. I was reluctant, as doing so would require migrating ~50 carefully crafted conf files which have evolved over many yrs. to be now seemingly impervious to abuse, or attack. I hadn't intended this server to become a guinea pig, but my ill fated attempts to install a stable copy of www/apache13-ssl from source necessitated increasing the resources on the other servers. So as to experiment on this one. To the point! Building Apache 2.0 on this box requied cvsupping src/ports (2008-01-30). As the version of Apache 2.0 was 2.0.61 (has 2 security related issues). Current version: 2.0.63. Building/installing this version went w/o trouble. Ran as expected. I only made 1 mod from the default config/build: WITH_MPM?= threadpool. The original was: WITH_MPM?= prefork. My diong so also required: KQUEUE. Other than that, all was as-was. [snip] Regardless of the errors you reported, I believe changing the MPM is a problem. Last time I tried Apache with the threaded worker MPM it worked flawlessly. However PHP has issues because it isn't thread safe. The only safe way to run the 2 together was to set the Apache MPM back to the default (prefork). Taking my disclaimer into account, I possibly just didn't figure out how to make the 2 play nice, so I'd welcome info/pointers from others who have managed to get threaded apache and PHP working together. Assuming no one pipes up and explains how to work around the PHP threading issues, I'd recommend rebuilding apache with the default MPM (shouldn't require any make variables defined). Verify it works ok once installed and then try get PHP working again. I would also echo the recommendation of others to jump straight to Apache 2.2(.8) if you're going to make a disruptive switch now anyways. I have a personal step-by-step build guide for getting Apache 2.2 and PHP5 working together if you're interested. As to your reported errors, I can't really shed any light on them, sorry. Cheers, Lawrence ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [: -le: argument expected
Hello Pete, and thank you for your continued input. I really appreciate it. Quoting Pete French [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, to be Frank with you ( even though my name is Chris ;) ), having to migrate ~50 conf files/layouts on top of mastering the /new/ Apache way of doing things, on top of aquainting myself with the way the modules /now/ do things, just isn't going to fit in my schedule. Oh sure I hear you (or others) say; you're going to have to do all of that anyway. Actually I understand that perfcetly - indeed I spent today finally mihgrating something originally installed on FreeBSD 3 many years ago (possibly 1999) and getting it working with ports as I had been avoiding re-doing it for all these years. Several hour and a lot of pain. If I wasn't off work sick it wouldn't have got done at all. I don't think it's (at this point in my install) reasonable to assume Apache 2.0 has anything to do with it. As the PHP5 build doesn't even care (or ask about) which Apache version I'm using, except to differentiate between it being 1.3 || 2.x. O.K., so this is a simple case of cd /usr/ports/lang/php5 make fetch-recursive make config-recursive make clean make yup ? now, I did that with a csup of php5 a few days ago and it was O.K. for me. A few days ago it worked great for me too. :) But seems that my cvsup of 2008-01-31 has added some changes to my php5 source. Namely: lang/php5/files/patch-Zend_zend_list.c, and lang/php5/files/patch-Zend_zend_list.h. I thought about getting the diffs from freebsd.org and diffing back. But felt I should hold back, in hopes of a better solution. I am reconning that this has something to do with some other ports that php5 is dependent on which havent been upgraded to the version in the tree. Hey, that's not asking much (not sarcastic). I'm not getting anywhere in/ at my current state. :) How about try configuring it *not* to build the apache dependent bits and see if it compiles then? The php5 port only depends on Apache if you tell it to build the Apache module. I'm /quite/ sure that that will work flawlessly. I'll do that first, and report my experience. Or try installing it with pkg_add -r ? I won't realize the recent changes that cvsup has added to the port source. Thanks again for all your input! I'll be back... --Chris -pete. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- panic: kernel trap (ignored) ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Newbie question
Hi all ! I just recently installed a 6.3 Release. All went fine until the qemu-launcher time arrives. I have an error and i dont know howto report it Can you help me or at least tellme a couple of guidelines ? Thanks in advance PS: Sorry for my English -- Saludos.- Leonardo Santagostini ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [: -le: argument expected
I may try that. But I'm at a loss as to what that has to do with getting php5 to build. As (mentioned earlier) I am unable to find where php5 does anything more that to ask if I'm using Apache 1.3 || 2. This puzzles me - my php5 from ports doesnt ask this at all. You just build it and it finds your Apache install (if you dont have apache installed then it tries to install 1.3). As to what it needs from Apache - well preseumbaly it uses axps and associated bits in order to build the module. -pete. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [: -le: argument expected
Quoting Pete French [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I may try that. But I'm at a loss as to what that has to do with
getting php5 to build. As (mentioned earlier) I am unable to find
where php5 does anything more that to ask if I'm using Apache 1.3 || 2.
This puzzles me - my php5 from ports doesnt ask this at all. You just
build it and it finds your Apache install (if you dont have apache
installed then it tries to install 1.3). As to what it needs from
Apache - well preseumbaly it uses axps and associated bits in order
to build the module.
Yes, it's an if, then block, and that's the size of it. Nothing more.
OK. Off to the /meat/ of things...
I did a build by declaring a WITHOUT_APACHE=true in my /etc/make.conf
and the /var/db/ports/php5/options. Leaving the following in both:
WITH_SUHOSIN=true
WITHOUT_MULTIBYTE=true
WITHOUT_MAILHEAD=true
WITH_CLI=true
WITH_CGI=true
WITHOUT_REDIRECT=true
WITHOUT_DISCARD=true
WITH_FASTCGI=true
WITH_PATHINFO=true
As suspected, it built without /any/ errors - OK just the following:
configure.in:152: warning: AC_PROG_LEX invoked multiple times
../../lib/autoconf/programs.m4:779: AC_DECL_YYTEXT is expanded from...
aclocal.m4:2080: PHP_PROG_LEX is expanded from...
configure.in:152: the top level
But it's been doing that for quite awhile, and doesn't get in the way
of a successful build or install.
On another note of interest; I found the problem that causes the
error message as used in the title of this thread:
[: -le: argument expected
The cause is in the file: lang/php5/files/patch-Zend_zend_list.c
It accounts for all /3/ errors emitted during the initial portion
of the make process. The lines are as follows:
--- Zend/zend_list.c.orig 2007-01-01 10:35:46.0 +0100
+++ Zend/zend_list.c2008-01-29 11:05:14.0 +0100
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@
return index;
}
-ZEND_API int _zend_list_delete(int id TSRMLS_DC)
+ZEND_API int _zend_list_delete(ulong id TSRMLS_DC)
{
*** zend_rsrc_list_entry *le;
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@
}
-ZEND_API void *_zend_list_find(int id, int *type TSRMLS_DC)
+ZEND_API void *_zend_list_find(ulong id, int *type TSRMLS_DC)
{
*** zend_rsrc_list_entry *le;
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@
}
}
-ZEND_API int _zend_list_addref(int id TSRMLS_DC)
+ZEND_API int _zend_list_addref(ulong id TSRMLS_DC)
{
*** zend_rsrc_list_entry *le;
(highlighted with three asterisks for clarity).
While it's nice that I found them. I'm not sure what to do to
make them correct. Any thoughts? Should I simply send-pr -
php5-apache-module build failure (lang/php5/files/patch-Zend_zend_list.c)?
Anyway, at least some headway has been made. :)
Thanks again, for all your input.
--Chris H
-pete.
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
panic: kernel trap (ignored)
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Newbie question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Leonardo Santagostini wrote: Hi all ! I just recently installed a 6.3 Release. All went fine until the qemu-launcher time arrives. I have an error and i dont know howto report it Can you help me or at least tellme a couple of guidelines ? Use the report a bug link on freebsd.org and give as much detail as you can (that is if you really think it is a bug else just post as much detail as you can here). - -- Aryeh M. Friedman FloSoft Systems, Java Tool Developers Developer, not business, friendly http://www.flosoft-systems.com Free software != Free beer Blog: http://www.flosoft-systems.com/flosoft_systems_community/blogs/aryeh/index.php -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHooP0Qi2hk2LEXBARAgTdAJ9iXyhgCMaZAIpsoyMT3AH/aXmkjACgscTa k7GD8sLq8usL1hzJpktL5Pc= =oAKI -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [: -le: argument expected
[I've kept your ccs, but I'm only subscribed to -stable] On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Chris H. wrote: Hello Pete, and thank you for your continued input. I really appreciate it. Quoting Pete French [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [.. huge snip.. ] How about try configuring it *not* to build the apache dependent bits and see if it compiles then? The php5 port only depends on Apache if you tell it to build the Apache module. I'm /quite/ sure that that will work flawlessly. I'll do that first, and report my experience. Or try installing it with pkg_add -r ? I won't realize the recent changes that cvsup has added to the port source. It wouldn't work anyway. Unless things have changed very recently - and I'd be pleasantly surprised to be told that they had - for some utterly bizarre reason, the php5 package does not include the apache module. Well, the reason is that packages are built with default port options, and the apache module is not a default port option. Fair enough, but for those people who'd hope to be able to install apache[anything] + php5 from packages, a php5-with-modphp5 package would be really handy. cheers, Ian ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading xorg 6.9 to 7.3 -- what happened to xorg-upgrade?
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 01:02:03AM +, Parish wrote: Bob Willcox wrote: No, I'm not interested in the script(1) part. I am familiar with script but wasn't interested in using it here. What I want is the xorg-upgrade program that is used to move a bunch of x11 files to new places for the 7.x version. xorg-upgrade is the file that script(1) spews all the output into so, if the upgrade fails, you've got all the info to work out why (which is why UPDATING suggests using script(1)). IIRC when I did the 6.9 - 7.x upgrade xorg-upgrade ended up being something like 30MB!! From script(1): script [-akq] [-t time] [file [command ...]] [...] If the argument file is given, script saves all dialogue in file. HTH Thanks for the info Mark, however I do know what script does and why one might use it (I've used it for years for just that, and I'm not even trying to use it here). What I was asking about (please re-read my subject line) was the xorg-upgrade command itself. Where is it located? I can't find it anywhere on any of my 10 FreeBSD systems (and I know it used to exist because I have used it in the past). Bob Regards, Mark -- Bob Willcox A lack of planning on your part does [EMAIL PROTECTED] not constitute an emergency on my part. Austin, TX ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading xorg 6.9 to 7.3 -- what happened to xorg-upgrade?
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 01:30:23AM +0100, Operator wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Willcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I want is the xorg-upgrade program that is used to move a bunch of x11 files to new places for the 7.x version. /usr/ports/Tools/scripts/mergebase.sh Is mergebase.sh a replacement for xorg-upgrade? -- Bob Willcox A lack of planning on your part does [EMAIL PROTECTED] not constitute an emergency on my part. Austin, TX ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading xorg 6.9 to 7.3 -- what happened to xorg-upgrade?
On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 21:26 -0600, Bob Willcox wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 01:30:23AM +0100, Operator wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Willcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I want is the xorg-upgrade program that is used to move a bunch of x11 files to new places for the 7.x version. /usr/ports/Tools/scripts/mergebase.sh Is mergebase.sh a replacement for xorg-upgrade? Bob, Re-read the previous replies and re-read man script(1) paying careful attention to the syntax of the (optional) arguments. xorg-upgrade is the name of the output file that script(1) will write to (i.e. name it anything you want, how about xorg-upgrade.log). xorg-upgrade is merely a suggested name for it. The wording of the /usr/ports/UPDATING entry can be misleading if you read it quickly and make what appears to be a reasonable assumption about how script(1) is used, viz. run the xorg 7.2 upgrade inside a script(1) session. followed by the # script xorg-upgrade example. Wayne ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading xorg 6.9 to 7.3 -- what happened to xorg-upgrade?
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:26:38 -0600, Bob Willcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 01:30:23AM +0100, Operator wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Willcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I want is the xorg-upgrade program that is used to move a bunch of x11 files to new places for the 7.x version. /usr/ports/Tools/scripts/mergebase.sh Is mergebase.sh a replacement for xorg-upgrade? In the /usr/ports/UPDATING said: === It is recommended that you run the xorg 7.2 upgrade inside a script(1) session. This way, if something goes wrong, you will have hopefully saved enough information for the developers to debug the problem. Make sure you choose a filesystem with lots of space for the script output. # script xorg-upgrade === See that 'script(1)', so run 'man 1 script' to learn more about 'script'. Cheers, Mezz -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD GNOME Team - FreeBSD Multimedia Hat (ports, not src) http://www.FreeBSD.org/gnome/ - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wiki.freebsd.org/multimedia - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading xorg 6.9 to 7.3 -- what happened to xorg-upgrade?
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:26:38 -0600 Bob Willcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 01:30:23AM +0100, Operator wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Willcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I want is the xorg-upgrade program that is used to move a bunch of x11 files to new places for the 7.x version. /usr/ports/Tools/scripts/mergebase.sh Is mergebase.sh a replacement for xorg-upgrade? No, it's always been mergebase.sh. xorg-upgrade is, and has always been, just the sample name for the script output file. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [: -le: argument expected
Hi Chris, Chris H. wrote: Hello, and thank you for your reply. Quoting Lawrence Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi Chris, Firstly, a disclaimer: I'm not an expert so I might be behind the times on what I'm about to tell you... Note taken. :) Chris H. wrote: Hello all, System: FreeBSD 7.0-PRERELEASE i386 Wed Jan 16 18:39:53 PST 2008 Context: After several failed attempts to get a /stable/ installation of Apache13-ssl and friends built and installed from source (see thread: /usr/bin/objformat, for more background). I chose to look at the possibility of using Apache 2.0. I was reluctant, as doing so would require migrating ~50 carefully crafted conf files which have evolved over many yrs. to be now seemingly impervious to abuse, or attack. I hadn't intended this server to become a guinea pig, but my ill fated attempts to install a stable copy of www/apache13-ssl from source necessitated increasing the resources on the other servers. So as to experiment on this one. To the point! Building Apache 2.0 on this box requied cvsupping src/ports (2008-01-30). As the version of Apache 2.0 was 2.0.61 (has 2 security related issues). Current version: 2.0.63. Building/installing this version went w/o trouble. Ran as expected. I only made 1 mod from the default config/build: WITH_MPM?= threadpool. The original was: WITH_MPM?= prefork. My diong so also required: KQUEUE. Other than that, all was as-was. [snip] Regardless of the errors you reported, I believe changing the MPM is a problem. Last time I tried Apache with the threaded worker MPM it worked flawlessly. However PHP has issues because it isn't thread safe. The only safe way to run the 2 together was to set the Apache MPM back to the default (prefork). While I appreciate your insight regarding php5 not being thread safe. I would argue that I am not seeing php5 using anthing regarding my Apache 2.0 build, except to ask whether it is 1.3 || 2. So, while you may be /absolutely/ correct about php5 not running well/at all with a threaded Apache. I'm still stumped as to why php5 refuses to build, and emits what appears to be errors in the php5 configure/make files. Point being; if I can get php5 to build/install. I might be able to make it play nice with a threaded Apache; and that would make /everyone/ happy. :) It does smell of a problem related with another port... Perhaps you just need to do some portupgrading? That said, with problems like this, I just reckon that it's best to start simple i.e. setup apache in the known good way (prefork mpm) and then get php working. Once you're convinced that all plays nice, then upgrade apache to use worker MPM and see what breaks (if anything). You're more likely to get useful help from people if you only change one variable at a time as it were. Taking my disclaimer into account, I possibly just didn't figure out how to make the 2 play nice, so I'd welcome info/pointers from others who have managed to get threaded apache and PHP working together. Assuming no one pipes up and explains how to work around the PHP threading issues, I'd recommend rebuilding apache with the default MPM (shouldn't require any make variables defined). Verify it works ok once installed and then try get PHP working again. I may try that. But I'm at a loss as to what that has to do with getting php5 to build. As (mentioned earlier) I am unable to find where php5 does anything more that to ask if I'm using Apache 1.3 || 2. As am I. But the cvsup of the ports tree has possibly required php to use a new dependency on a newer version of autoconf or some other pkg. Installing the ports-mgmt/portupgrade port and running portupgrade -Rrf php5 will take all the hard work out of ensuring all your packages required by PHP are up to date. I would also echo the recommendation of others to jump straight to Apache 2.2(.8) if you're going to make a disruptive switch now anyways. I have a personal step-by-step build guide for getting Apache 2.2 and PHP5 working together if you're interested. Not going to happen - in the near future anyway. It's not unlike asking an Athiest to become a Jew. While it may be possible for one to make the change. It's a quantum leap. I've recently elaborated on this already. So I'll not repeat myself here. :) The other messages in the thread hadn't arrived at my mail client before I said this... sorry for flogging the dead horse a little more (but I guess I suspected the effort to go from 1.3-2.0 is effectively identical to 1.3-2.2, but that is a guess). Cheers, Lawrence ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading xorg 6.9 to 7.3 -- what happened to xorg-upgrade?
On 1/31/08, Jeremy Messenger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:26:38 -0600, Bob Willcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 01:30:23AM +0100, Operator wrote: In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Willcox [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I want is the xorg-upgrade program that is used to move a bunch of x11 files to new places for the : In the /usr/ports/UPDATING said: : # script xorg-upgrade : We should change this in UPDATING to: # script xorg-upgrade.log Then there would be less confusion about the xorg-upgrade file. Scot ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
